Bump! Are we done here, or do we need a few more days? — <span style="font-family:Mistral">[[User:Yuanchosaan|<font color="skyblue">Yuan</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Yuanchosaan|<font color="#00BFFF">Salut</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Yuanchosaan|<font color="#1E90FF">Acta</font>]]</sub></span> 00:21, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:21, September 27, 2011

Contents

Discussion

I feel hypocritical making this topic. Mainly because everytime we had a vandalism strike and a member of staff was not watching RC, someone would create a topic saying how we needed more staff.

But I've noticed a lack of activity from admins. I've seen them come online, yes, maybe editing userpages or doing maybe a couple of edits here and there, or responding to messages in their talkpage. I haven't seen any of the regular admin maintenance that used to happen. Rock (FF7: Advent Children), one of our finest articles we sadly have to delete, was put up at the end of August and is still here. And there are other things that have been up since the start of August (having only checked a few). These were articles that blatantly need to be deleted. The disorganised style of our AfD (only having one delete template) isn't very good, but it should be purged at least once a week, or better, every day. Or even just as soon as the tag goes up.

It's not just things that need to be deleted. I've seen many articles being moved through copy and paste. When admins ruled the wiki, this would have been quickly rectified, or picked up on by an admin. But users can't wait for admins when they might not even be around. I used to just see which SysOps were online by recent edits. Not anymore.

And since a lot of on-wiki debates are settled with an admin decision (since other users are equal and one user settling on a consensus without authoritive power doesn't make any sense), debates can essentially be endless.

And I still have a major dislike of our project space. Although that's nothing to do with the current inactivity, but it has been practically the same since I started here other than a few revisions to the MoS.

I completely understand that the SysOps have things going on in real life and don't actually have the choice of being active on the wiki. And that's the exact reason I think we need more admins. If the current SysOps can't do their job right now, then we need new ones who can do it during this time.

I am forced to agree. Even though I don't think there're those many articles for deletion that warrant a new Sysop, we have had a lot of movement, with the recent TGS and mainspace projects, which requires the overview of administrators. - Henryacores^ 21:06, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this wiki needs a new and active admin, but it won't happen. The last time this was discussed the admins who could be bothered to comment added their support to a user who is a self confessed wikiogre and hasn't made an edit since April, and a user who is well known for their wikibreaks and has vowed to leave the wiki. The admins here are unwilling to allow another user to join their ranks, no matter how much it would benefit the wiki. 64.185.224.70 18:34, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a possibility that I think I've mentioned before at least on IRC, if not elsewhere: the concept of a semi-admin (or part-time, or backup; call it what you will). The idea would be that they are users who have admin user rights, but aren't treated like admins, and generally don't use their powers. They're normal users (or as the case may be, normal mods) until an issue crops up that needs rapid admin attention, but when none of the "full" admins are around. At those times, and those times only, they can utilise their admin powers to deal with the problem, then revert to acting like a normal user. Just throwing it out there -- SorcerorNobody 19:06, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like too much work for no real reason. The "last person to go to" also is the person that's always here? The person that's always here has more right to be an admin than someone who is not.

It's not "rapid admin attention" that I see as a problem here. It's the lack of admin's availability, and the lack of regular admin activities being done. I decided to create this topic after I saw Drake uploading png versions of existing gifs. This would later require an admin to delete the files.

Or, if a user who frequently edits, and works with the updating of Wiki-things (moving things, deleting old things), and also is regularly involved in the WikiPolitics discussions -- if this user was granted admin status, then you have an admin who is easy to find, is likely to use their powers for the good of the wiki and swiftly, and help the wiki come to decisions on topics. Cuz we all know coming to decisions is not something the wiki does well.

The way I see it, we don't have any active admins, and at least two more should be elect. In fact, I'd say we need a new active Bcrat. CSM left and granted bcrat rights to Diablo, but Diablo's activity here deteriorated soon after. I know there isn't much need for bcratic rights on the wiki, only in rare instances, but if you have a bcrat, they should at least be active within the wiki. 79.69.203.203 20:38, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for an admin addition, but only if there was someone here that was worthy of admin status. That said I do have one or two users in mind. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 20:49, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think you will be unlikely to find the person you're looking for, someone who works with moving and deleting things and is involved in wiki politics and is "always around".Keltainentoukokuu 20:50, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

The intention was to describe Drake. :) 79.69.203.203 21:00, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the semi-admin idea is mainly an attempt to appeal to the existing admins' reluctance to add new admins by dressing it up as "not really admins" >_>

In terms of candidates, I don't think the list will really have changed since the last promotion, and of the candidates for admin, I would mainly continue to support Bluesey and Drake; however, Bluesey is critically busy of late, and Drake presumably remains reluctant. So, even if we can persuade the existing admins to go along with adding more, we'd probably have to look at promoting one of the "new" mods again... : / -- SorcerorNobody 21:06, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We do have a few of our older mods who are still here on a regular basis, though if we can't get them...you seem disappointed that we'd have to nominate a newer mod. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 21:11, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Drake is indeed a good choice. He's been active for a while, so perhaps a good chance there he will remain that way. But I was also under impression the community wanted it more than he did.Keltainentoukokuu 21:16, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Essentially it just means you no longer have to go through admins to get things done, and you have more responsibility, and are relied upon more. He claims to be a WikiMercenary, I thought that's the kind of thing he would want :p.

Of course, new sysops should welcome the new power and responsibility. 79.69.203.203 21:20, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

DSS: I think that most of us do not have a problem with promoting one of the newer mods; the issue is more to do with the fact that it seems that the other admins have previously shown a tendency to be influenced by the amount of time that a user has been active on the wiki and active as a mod, rather than basing their opinions on individual metit.For the record, I would support the promotion of one or more new admins, and Drake seems to be the obvious candidate. 21:22, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that the majority of the wiki would have no problem with it, I was just looking for a little clarification from SN. My point here is that I'll take whatever help we can get. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 21:30, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my view wasn't very clear. I have no problem with promoting the "new" mods again so soon. It's just that it'll run up against the same admin reluctance as a "veteran" would, but probably more so; the : / was sort of a "so we're back at square one with that line of thinking".

We do have some older mods who are around, true, but if they weren't nominated last time, has anything really changed to make them any more likely to be nominated now? In particular, the list of active mods was examined in the discussion last time, and nobody seemed to argue with Jimcloud's conclusion that none of them were especially viable apart from the reluctant Drake -- SorcerorNobody 21:43, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that they weren't nominated last time was more due to the fact that they were just merely overlooked than the consensus being that they weren't up to snuff. I think everyone was so up on Drake that they did just get overlooked. Taking nothing away from him, I don't believe Jim's conclusion last time was so correct as she's not one of those users who've been around for a few years to know fully what a few of our older mods have done for the wiki. A lot of our current userbase shares that too, and it might have been a factor why no one argued against it. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 22:05, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I try to be admin like even though I'm not one (pwease?) by removing vandalism. I do wish that the junk articles would be deleted... AmbieSushi To think that mother would prefer Sephiroth over... 21:25, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'd still be happy to take the job. I'm still around pretty regularly, just too wiped to be arsed to do much article editing or my arena at this point given article cleanup is generally doing a lot of searching stuff to find things in need of cleaning and my arena can mean up to an hour of dedicated time. Several of you may have noticed I've still been working on things like rants and reviews and my l'Cie page, among other things. When it comes to deleting articles, I'd be happy to take a whack at it in short bursts, and any vandal on my watch would be taken care of. Aside from that, there's still a good deal wrong with our code that I'd be happy to fix. I just am not very visible right now is all. BluestarultorBSA 22:07, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want admin rights to be forced onto a user if they don't want it or feels they don't deserve it.

If we were to vote for a new admin (I said the "v" word!), it would be better to ask the prospective nominee first whether they want the chance to become one, before they are nominated. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 22:12, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that basically how it's always been? You make it sound like nominees have no right to decline. BluestarultorBSA 22:18, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Nominees have every right to decline, but what I'm arguing is that the system would be a lot smoother if they declined before they were nominated, rather than decline after getting a majority vote after voting has concluded.

Besides, regardless of the result of the vote if we have one, the current admins would have the final say, as they should. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 22:26, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I think before we jump to nominating and asking for new admins, we should first consult the admins we already had (or at least notify them of this forum). It seems reckless to start nominating successors behind the incumbents' backs. We should ask if perhaps they would like another admin to help them ease the burden of administrative duties before nominating and proposing a new admin.

Additionally, earlier up JBed brings up the point of bureaucrat. Do we want one new admin and bureaucrat, do we want to have one new bureaucrat and several new admins, or have new admins and promote one of the current admins? ScatheMote 22:19, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, we need an active crat (at least one), we need active admins, and I think we need to be a bit firmer with the team than you're indicating. Our last round of this showed, to be blunt, that a buttload of the staff simply are no longer part of the community and don't see its members, much less its problems. This is NOT a matter of "would you like help" because whether or not they want help at this point is divorced with the actual needs of the wiki. This is a matter of "you're no longer around to help us and we either need you to come back for real or give us people of our own choice, because we're the ones still around."

I hate to be so scathing, but it irks me that a whole ton of feedback just got ignored the last time this came up. We need, and I mean need, for the people in power to listen this time around. Because the fact of the matter is they're no longer around enough to really know what's going on anymore. BluestarultorBSA 22:29, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

In my opinion, we should be upgrading 2/3 new admins, and then later decide a bcrat from the selection of all our admins at that time. Some of our current SysOps could just be away due to current events, so ruling them out wouldn't be fair. But then ruling out potential newly elected admins also wouldn't if they could fulfil the job better.

As for letting the old admins know, I think the currently available community should organise this. To be honest, if none of the current administrative time know about this topic, then that says something about the current situation.

Both of your points make sense. I'm not totally in agreement, but I know that we really should get a move on with this.

I agree with JBed's amount of admins and bureaucrats, and where we should pick them from. But to pick them, I don't think just voting in a poll is the right idea. I suggest we find which ones the community would like to become admins, and perhaps present the 5 best to the current admins. Thus, we have both community support and administrative support.

Though it is necessary that the people who are nominate want to be admins. And not in the sense that being promoted is good, but in the sense that they are able to exercise their duties to the fullest extent. If you have even the slightest hint that perhaps filtering through images for deletions, stopping arguments, and essentially being the head judge of the wiki could be annoying or you are too lazy to do something like that, then don't become an admin. We don't want to replace the admins we have now we people who are motivated. ScatheMote 22:46, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scathe. The only thing that slightly worries me with that idea is that if the admins are behind on who is contributing, they may not know who to choose out of the selection we supply. That said, I don't think the admins are behind at all and therefore shouldn't be much of a problem. Just because we don't see them edit every week, doesn't mean they don't visit the wiki every week. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 22:54, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I think the members of the userbase should nominate themselves for admins rather than be nominated. This avoids people not wanting to be admins, and everyone is equal. In my honest opinion, when someone nominates themselves for something, I often don't like to vote for them because it sounds like they "up" themselves more than anyone else. If everyone does it then there is less bias, even if it is just mine. :p

If we had a number of criteria a good sysop should have, then we could get the people who want to be nominated to write how they think they fulfil the criteria.

As much as I detest a vote. At this point maybe users will be more clued up on the ordeal and it won't be so much with popularity. I'm not sure I entirely agree with presenting things to existing admins... I'm not saying they shouldn't have an influence but I'd rather their voice weren't much more than the current community's. The community is who the sysops are for. Although I admit, the opinion of staff is far more valued than those who are not since they should know the workings of the wiki and make decisions that are less biased.

We could all try to collaborate and create a list of what an admin should be in this forum, and then formally introduce it in another forum.

(Offtopic) Speaking of forums and admins, I think there are some significant forums we should move to the labyrinth, like some of the ones about the KHWiki and moving. And I guess we need admins for that. Hmm… ScatheMote 23:04, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

To counter a few points, we know for a fact that a good deal of the staff DOESN'T come on a weekly basis. Why? Because Diablo said several of them were hard to contact. If they came, it would be as easy as leaving a message on their talk pages. For that matter, I believe it was Diablo himself who said he didn't recognize any of the nominees last time, and many people from the staff list never weighed in. Many are outright marked as inactive on there. If they aren't around for even that much, they're not around.

Second, this last round was hardly a popularity contest. People had good reasons for voting for the nominees. That's not something we need to worry about.

Third, the staff are no less biased than anyone else. Maybe more, given they totally ignored a chunk of what we were asking for last time. If they weren't biased, they wouldn't have ignored requests for new staff for so long, especially admins. Also, just because they know how a wiki works behind the scenes has no bearing on choosing users to promote. If it did, SN would have been a perfect choice because he has his own wiki. Trust me when I say that the admin control panel is probably not as complicated as you'd think. Any setup worth its salt is made as easy to use as possible for non-technical people. Bump around in it for a few days and you'll probably know how to do everything.

What I'm saying is the current staff are not magical beings. They're just like anyone else, just with more controls at their fingertips. And in some cases their opinions on who should be promoted are less valuable because they don't know any of us. BluestarultorBSA 23:24, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, Bluesey. IMO, the current admins are competent; that is not the issue. We simply need a more constant admin presence, which may well necessitate the promotion of multiple candidates. Perhaps we should consider making an effort to find a European admin? I don't think that there are any active admins in this time zone at the moment, and rectifying that would certainly help to create a more constant SysOp presence. 23:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict: To counter-counter:

We may aren't necessarily bringing this to Diablo. We're bringing it to all the admins, and they know who the important users on the wiki are. Someone doesn't have to edit every single day to know what's going on in the wiki.

It has been a popularity contest in the past. I want to prevent it from happening again.

The admins aren't necessarily more technically versed than any other users, but they have experience. They helped shape this wiki to the way it is today, and they have created many of the policies in use now. They know how to run a wiki and what qualities make a good leader; therefore, they should pick the admin. Generally, mainspace contributions are a sign of work towards the wiki. You may be amazing with Mediawiki, you may have a great userpage, but when it comes down to it, this wiki isn't about who can code the best or who can make things look the nicest. This is about who would be the best to run the wiki, and those would be the ones who have contributed to it. The admins may have chosen not to promote any of the users in question because they didn't agree with the nominations or didn't think that they were fit to administer the wiki. Just because something doesn't happen, doesn't mean it's ignored. I doubt the admins would ignore something that took up half the page. ScatheMote 23:56, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just popping in to note, if you guys decide I deserve it and Diablo is willing to grant it, I'll accept Admin position. However I'm by no means the only person who could be a good addition, off the top of my head Xeno and Henry would work well. I don't remember how long Bluesey has been here but he knows a lot about coding and is very helpful. I'll mention Kelt too, she's very productive but is a bit of a new user, relatively speaking. DoreikuKuroofangu 00:20, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with a number of opinions presented here: New oversight is needed, simply to assure there is someone watching over things as close to around the clock as we can get. This is not a comment on the quality of the admins already present; it's more a case of "Too many Indians, not enough chiefs" (Which is better than the reverse in my opinion).
While I would support Drake, I won't if he is reluctant to accept. He works hard, and takes time to even tackle the largest walls of text people throw at him. That said, I have noted a short temper at times, and has little patience for people, which is not ideal for an admin, but is perfectly workable.
Another big point I wanted to make was one Scathe just did: we have to be careful not to just promote and support our friends. An admin or any System Operator is a role of responsibility and power, and as I mentioned to a new comer asking for those rights not long ago; they need to not only have the support of the people, but also the skills and abilities to deliver on expectations.
As for nominating candidates, I would probably say it is better to ask those potential if they would accept before we nominate them. Likeacupcake 00:40, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

We are the ones who edit here day in day out, we're the wiki community, we're the ones who make the site, I think we should be "allowed" to pick "a leader" among us, because we notice there is a need. Let's decide on someone(s) and then present them to Diablo and see what he says, I'm sure he'd work with us. I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. I don't think we necessarily need another bureaucrat though.

I continue to support Bluestarultor, because he has natural leadership qualities (personal interpretation ;)), he knows about coding, he uses the Oasis skin that I think would need some work on the mainpage because some things are still not right with it ever since the switch, I suppose because none of the old staff uses it they don't even see it... and I think we should have at least one admin who works with the skin majority of people actually see. He may be busy but who can guarantee they will never be busy if promoted? He is on regularly and I think if he could devote, say, two hours to wiki work every Saturday (or whatever day) then that would be a fine amount of time to ask someone to promote to basically voluntary work.

I would also support Drake. I think he has improved with his temper since the time I first joined, he is willing to do "boring maintenance work" (bless him) and he is the backbone of the community and is already pretty much the face of the wiki (;)).Keltainentoukokuu 01:21, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

"He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"

"The admins here are unwilling to allow another user to join their ranks, no matter how much it would benefit the wiki."

"Third, the staff are no less biased than anyone else. Maybe more, given they totally ignored a chunk of what we were asking for last time. If they weren't biased, they wouldn't have ignored requests for new staff for so long, especially admins."

"Well, the semi-admin idea is mainly an attempt to appeal to the existing admins' reluctance to add new admins by dressing it up as "not really admins" >_>"

Thank you, ILHI, Bluesey and others, for putting words in our mouth when 8bit and I are perfectly fine with making admins, and I think Diablo has said as much as well. Those of us who didn't support it previously did have reasons, which seem to have been equally ignored on the other side. The strange thing about reasons is that sometimes they don't hold anymore, and that's the case here.

You know, I'm entirely fine with the wiki community nominating who they want as an admin - that's how it should be. How about instead of dividing the community into "staff" against "non-staff", instead of attacking the other group, assuming they all think the same way, and not notifying them (how can I present my opinion when you're so keen to do it for me?), we work together to choose who we think would be the best for the wiki?

Incidentally, my nominees: Jimcloud and Henryacores.

I said as much in IRC, but for the benefit of others, my complaint stemmed from a lack of transparency. If you look at the previous round of this, there was never any final word given on the decision not to promote an admin. I checked the thread for weeks and all there ever was was silence. Looking at it again, there NEVER was a definitive answer given. That's not to say that maybe individuals didn't ask and get one, but the decision and reasoning should have been given to everyone. Also, I talked with you, 8Bit, and Fae about your opinions individually and got those, but you three were only ever part of the decision and I never got the full story, or close enough to it, until just today on IRC, sadly too late for my posts here. The only reason I got as much info as I did was because I was persistent, and I STILL was left in the dark after I just plain gave up.

This is nothing against you, Fae, 8Bit, or anyone else who's active around here. My main point is really that your opinions are worth more, to me anyway, than someone who's never around because you three are all still a part of the community. That's regardless of what they are. By all means, you guys shouldn't be cut out of the process, but that's because you're around and can offer your own perspectives, where if someone else on the team waltzed in after a zillion years away, their opinion really wouldn't be informed. BluestarultorBSA 03:31, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: To be more succinct, don't take what I said personally. I got your opinion last time and was fine with that. My frustration is that opinions were asked, from what Diablo said, of people who aren't around and otherwise didn't give their input. Those opinions should not be factored in because they're simply not based on current information. I think the Lycentia situation illustrates that. Many people took that as a serious slap in the face. People who are out of touch with the community, with all due respect, should not be deciding what happens to it. If they want to have a say, they need to have a stay. BluestarultorBSA 04:04, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous forum, we discussed amongst the "active" admins who we thought would be best for the role, and obviously we didn't keep harping on Diablo to admin someone. The absence of a decision lies more with the active admins than those that are inactive, in my opinion. However, that doesn't mean we weren't deliberating over this for a while. No one got promoted; that doesn't mean active admins had their heads in the sand about what the community was discussing. It just means we weren't dead set on a decision and stopped talking about the matter with Diablo. If some admins haven't been on the wiki for almost a year, I don't understand the point in expecting an opinion from them and blaming them for the lack of adminship per the previous forum.

In all honesty, I'm not active here at all compared to most other admins and some nominees. I just IRC, derp in userspace, and occasionally revert or ban. There is a difference between being available and being active, but I'd like to think that I have been the former, at least on the IRC for requests, at the very least. I do think there are nominees very qualified for adminship and these rights should be given to at least one person.

Like Yuan said, we aren't trying to make this into "As staff, let's jump on this forum so everyone will know our opinion and fear it." I'm not going to cast votes for people, as I refrained from doing so last time; but please know that I have opinions and I do share them with fellow admins, and I have been keeping an eye on this forum. No sarcasm bro. Or maybe I just totally ignore whole chunks of what's going on around here, just like I apparently did last time. It's very interesting what people will say when they think someone is totally ignoring them. >_>

First of all, apologies to Yuan, 8bit and the other admins for making assumptions about their position on the issue.

"In my opinion, we should be upgrading 2/3 new admins, and then later decide a bcrat from the selection of all our admins at that time."This sounds like a pretty feasible option to me, although the bcrat thing is something that we'll want to run by Diablo first. Obviously, he'll know about it in the end either way because he'd be the one granting the rights, but... yeah, he should know well in advance, just out of courtesy. Not that I'm saying anyone was actually planning to "go behind his back", because I'd like to think none of us would do that.

"...the admin control panel is probably not as complicated as you'd think"Well, there isn't really an admin control panel per se; the tools aren't really localised in one convenient page... but yes, they are generally very simple to use.

"...consider making an effort to find a European admin?"...or at least one that's often on in the daytime of UTC. The important thing is covering as much of the day as possible. That said, we shouldn't pass over a good candidate in favour of one that may not be as good on the basis of things like timezones. Something to aim for, yes; to focus on, no.

"This is about who would be the best to run the wiki, and those would be the ones who have contributed to it."Bear in mind what "administrator" actually means, at least in the context of a wiki. The qualities of contribution and so forth are important, yes, but that's not really what a wiki administrator is. Fundamentally speaking, the main purpose of admins is really the technical running of the wiki, as evidenced by the tools that sysops have access to. In fact, even that title – System Operators – is indicative of the technical side of the duties. Good contributors can make good admins, and often do (I do not dispute the value of experience); however, the coding side most definitely should not be belittled.

The thing is, not all admins are the same. Not all admins need to be the same. The procedure of granting sysop rights doesn't involve applying a cookie-cutter. Different jobs can require the attention of different people with different skills. There would be no shame in, for example, having an admin almost entirely dedicated to the coding side of administration. Someone needs to cover it, and there's no rule that says we can't have someone be an admin for almost that reason alone. I say almost, because as I've mentioned, I do not dispute the value of experience and contributions. I just don't think that they should be the be-all and end-all.

"...but the decision and reasoning should have been given to everyone"There've been a few times where admin opinion hasn't always been clear. It's rarely a major concern, but it doesn't exactly help. In any discussion, holding a certain view is all well and good, but if we don't see the reasoning behind it, it's hard to give it full credence, because it has the outward appearance of being unfounded. Of course, it very rarely, if ever, is unfounded, but I believe that if you want to argue in favour of something, you should explain why. Otherwise it's not really an argument. By the same token, if the result is that there is no result, that should also be made known to all who participated in the discussion. As frustrating as it is for a situation to go effectively unresolved, it's still better to know that it's not going anywhere, rather than being left in limbo. Especially since, as we've seen on this very issue, being left in limbo has an unfortunate tendency to breed assumptions, and possibly even an odd sort of suspicion, about why.

The thing is, the intended role of an admin is not that they are any "better" than other users; they're really just entrusted with administrative powers, and as I've pointed out, those powers are on the technical side. The ingrained idea that admins' opinions are worth more is fundamentally flawed. Admin opinions on any given general issue are exactly equal to any other user's (barring users who are just being plain stupid or trollish). On issues where it affects the wiki administratively, their "opinion" is less of a subjective thing and more a manifestation of administrative experience, and in that situation, yes, it is worth more.

Category: I've probably missed a few points here. Forum's been very busy overnight...

Well, I reckon it's about time I waltz in, give an opinion and proceed to vanish for about a week again. And, BTW, I haven't read the whole thing so sorry if I miss something important.

We certainly need more admins, from what I've seen, most of them have dropped off in activity over the past few months. This is definitely not an issue of anything other than activity levels, mind you, I still believe that all active admins are quite competent. A European admin would certainly be nice, but last time I checked, geographical convenience is not a good basis for selecting admins.

FYI, SN, there is an admin control panel, the Admin Dashboard, but a) it's an Oasis feature, b) it's basically a re-skinned Special:SpecialPages and c) it overrides the set background colour, which makes it really jarring when you're an admin on a site with a dark b/g (Like the one I'm admin on). I agree that the tools are easy to use, though.

I do not wish to make any nominations as I certainly haven't been watching the wiki enough to make any good judgement there. -- SomeColorMage ~ (Talk) 09:44, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

"Thank you, ILHI, Bluesey and others, for putting words in our mouth when 8bit and I are perfectly fine with making admins, and I think Diablo has said as much as well."

That reminds me, a good admin... no, a good editor should use Oasis. It's what our userbase view and its what are articles should be made for. It's obvious most people don't. ;) 79.69.204.213 16:49, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. It helps, of course, but it's far from being a major criterion, since the skin only really matters for the CSS and JS. Day-to-day editing is mostly independent of the skin, because a block of text is a block of text regardless of the page width, and likewise for objects like images and videos. The main thing that's affected by the skin, really, is templates, and you don't have to be an admin to fix those, or indeed for any other day-to-day editing as long as the page isn't fully protected. Furthermore, the main administrative tools (block, delete, protect, move over redirect, etc.) are completely independent of the skin because they are purely functional.

That said, this issue does go along with my argument that there would be no shame in having a "coding specialist" admin, whose scope would cover the CSS and JS, and for whom the skins would therefore be extremely relevant -- SorcerorNobody 17:00, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It's not the admins' responsibility but rather the complete community's to layout the articles according to the Oasis skin, because admins can't do much more that a normal autoconfirmed user can in regards to that. JS and CSS are much more important. I also think that the MoS's protection should be lighter because I believe the update rate doesn't match the necessary changes and additions. - Henryacores^ 17:10, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

^^that's what admins are for. There's no problem with only SysOps editing the MoS if there were admins to edit/who care about the MoS.

Back to using Oasis, well I did correct what I said to refer to users instead of just admins. @SN: tables works in %s. Monobook users have no idea how cramped tables look-- they often don't fit on the page. And they sometimes don't fit so they don't display properly. People who put a "perrow" more than 3 on a gallery will go off the main article space. There is much more to it than "a block of text is a block of text". 79.69.204.213 17:33, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, all of what you mean may also screw up the display to users who have lower resolution screens so it's not just Oasis' fault. I honestly think percentages are the way to go because they work in all cases, but just better in Monobook. Note that I'm not trying to imply things should look better in Monobook, but rather that they should be versatile and work good with all skins. - Henryacores^ 17:47, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT

True, JBed, but I think you know what I meant. Anyway, since the majority of the templates that are affected by the width are tables, which is why they are affected, the principle of my argument still stands. So yes, I should have said tables rather than templates; nonetheless, the point is that this is not a concern for admins only but, as Henry pointed out, equally applicable to everyone. I'm not saying that admins don't have to deal with Oasis, because they do, as all users do. I'm saying that because it's not an admin-only issue, it's not relevant as a criterion for candidates -- SorcerorNobody 17:53, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I was just trying to voice my opinions on the matter of Oasis. Perhaps in the wrong place. But still. As for %s, my opinion on the matter is we model articles to fit nicely for Oasis and its 643px width, so it looks nice on Oasis, and our userbase don't view it in monobook so Actually, this isn't the place. 79.69.204.213 22:15, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, if I were to offer criteria to try to look for: People who don't find the "Gnome" like tasks of the wiki tedious. People who take interest in the decisions of the wiki. People who have a decent amount of activity. People who are well versed in the rules of the wiki and the way it functions and will have actively enforce it. Secondary things to consider are approachability, times/timezones on wiki, coding skills (particularly involved with CSS and JS), and how often they would need admin assistance otherwise.

It's probably worth saying that I do plan to nominate myself for the position, so maybe I'm not the best person to be choosing criteria. Oh, and an ideal admin should also have had two accounts, and suffered breakdowns. :p 79.69.204.213/JBed 22:15, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account then? If you're so interested in the wikiClarent--(Fate/Zero) 22:28, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Various reasons... not place to discuss. 79.69.204.213 22:32, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

...I fear that this forum topic will soon get so long people will stop reading it halfway through. If we are going to find an admin, may I suggest we start the process sooner rather than later. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:23, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no harm to adding new admins.Clarent--(Fate/Zero) 23:27, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I created a nominee section, but someone seems to have removed it. Are we creating it here or elsewhere? BluestarultorBSA 23:32, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Um..maybe on the subpage or something...to save space?Clarent--(Fate/Zero) 23:34, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say best practice is to not create subpages in forumspace. It has a different structure than other namespaces and we shouldn't be leaving a mess. BluestarultorBSA 23:38, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know..so yeah. I am for adding new admins Clarent--(Fate/Zero) 23:41, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A new forum topic would be better. It would save users from wading through this giant wall of text to get to the nomination/voting section.

I don't even think it's been decided how this process will work. The discussion has been somewhat derailed by discussions on what the ideal admin should be when we should be concentrating on getting past the first hurdle: deciding how to decide this.

We could either nominate and then vote, as we did before, or just nominate users and then let the current admins decide from a shortlist. I personally believe the second option is better because it provides better feedback. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:46, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies JBed (I also apologise for calling you ILHI; force of habit). I think I have the tendency to assume every policy-contributing anon to be you. ^^;

I feel I ought to give some clarification as to the reasoning of the last admin debate, and why it turned out like it did. The reasons were thus (though note they differed on the person as well):

There didn't seem to be a serious need for new admins. Vandalism, policy discussions and administrative tasks were still being addressed when they became pressing. Now that all the admins are less active, this isn't so. What can I say about that? Sorry, sorry, sorry, and that's all.

Many people didn't seem to be thinking this through. There were a lot of votes cast for multiple people which disregarded both the quality of the candidates, what it means to be admin and that we wouldn't be able to promote everyone. It's a serious decision to make, which Diablo is not keen to be trigger-happy with (those who remember CSM's modding policies will understand why). If we're reluctant to make new admins, we're even more reluctant to demote them.

There was a lot of disagreement about the qualities of the candidates. This is a sensitive issue, and we didn't feel comfortable discussing it in the forum. I'm sure it's understood that users respect each other even if they don't support them as admin candidates, but even so, feelings get hurt. The forum could easily turn into an argument over the merits and vices of individual nominees. I know how that feels.

Because the Staff knew they were going to be contacted by Diablo, and thus would have the opportunity to give another opinion, it didn't seem right to comment again in the forum, thus "doubling" their opinion in a way. That accounts for some of the lack of transparency, and I'm sorry it occurred like that.

Non-active staff mostly said "I don't care". That doesn't make for a dissenting vote - Diablo just says "okay" and looks to the other staff members.

What do you suggest we do differently this time around, as not to repeat the same mistakes? Clearly the system last time wasn't thought through enough.Keltainentoukokuu 00:48, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, CSM's modding policy. It makes me wonder how we only have three users in the "acknowledged but not actual staff" category. -- SomeColorMage ~ (Talk) 01:08, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to answer some of Yuan's points:-

I agree that there was a lesser need for a new admin before. That's one of the two reasons why I didn't take part in that discussion (the other was that I was just too busy at the time). And you don't need to apologise for not being here all the time. Admin-ship is a voluntary role and we (I, certainly) won't think any less of you if you become inactive every now and then.

I agree. The voting system was full of arguing over who was best. That's why a nomination system where a user nominates a user, say why they think they would make a good admin, and then out of the nominees, the admins can decide who to pick. It could be one, two, three admins, or maybe none of them at all.

I'm sure a lot of us can act like responsible adults. Those that can't can be simply ignored. That's why I think admins should be the ones to decide, because they will act like adults and disregard the childish comments.

That may be a problem. I don't know if there is a way to overcome that.

There must be some active staff out there. If some have a 'don't care' attitude then that's fine. There is more of a need for admins now - you said so yourself - so there might be some more urgency among the active staff.

You know, I used to hate the talk bubbles because they didn't allow the full dynamic of discussions (where you reply to specific comments beneath it with the colon system), but now people seem to be replying in a linear fashion, or not using an easy fashion to refer those comments, talkboxes look appealing right now.

"The forum could easily turn into an argument over the merits and vices of individual nominees. I know how that feels."

I agree. apologies, i did that

"That's why a nomination system where a user nominates a user, say why they think they would make a good admin, and then out of the nominees, the admins can decide who to pick."

Being nominated by other users means the work you put in the wiki has been recognised by other users. This doesn't reflect what you have actually done. Hence why I think those interested should explain their own reasons. And those not interested then don't have to be nominated for a position they do not desire.

"I don't even think it's been decided how this process will work. The discussion has been somewhat derailed by discussions on what the ideal admin should be when we should be concentrating on getting past the first hurdle: deciding how to decide this."

Apologies, perhaps I got my hurdles in the wrong order. When Bluestar added the nominees list I was all like "but we don't even know what we're looking for yetz?".

Anyway, my position on this is I don't think admins should have a greater voice than a single member of the community. And I dislike a simple voting system. If we had everyone write why they think they should be admin then sent it people who know nothing about the ffwiki to judge who would be better as a SysOp, thus eliminating all user preference bias. But then they don't know the people so have no idea how well the actual person would fulfil their job, just reasons for why they claim they would.

Blegh, I'll just come back to this topic when a method has been decided. 79.69.196.219 15:17, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Method Proposals

Since this needs to get sorted out before we go voting, a place to propose and discuss how this will work.

Self-nominate and collect votes

I vote people self-nominate, explain their reasons for thinking they'd do well, and then have other people either agree with reasons previously stated or add their own. These reasons should then be judged by the current staff as to whether they're good or relevant reasons. In other words, potentially someone with only a few votes with good reasoning could have more "real" votes than someone with a load of votes total. BluestarultorBSA 15:58, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this how every single electoral system out there works? Feeling self-conscious about nominating yourself is just irrational modesty. Fëasindëte audio 17:43, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Because no one truly knows what you've done in the past and what you can achieve in the future except for yourself. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 00:06, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Nominate others, admins decide from shortlist

This method allows users to nominate other users, stating reasons why they are capable of doing the job. There are no votes, but other users can add more reasons to the same nominee, but as long as comments are positive, i.e. no stating reasons why they might not be suitable. Nominees who don't want to be admins can strike themselves off the list. Then the current admins can decide out of the nominees which user(s) can be given admin status, if any at all. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 16:16, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't object to allowing self-nomination (indeed, I'd probably encourage it), there might be willing and able candidates who aren't good at self-promotion. I should stress that this is merely an illustrative example of what I mean, but... compare my own self-analysis in the previous forum to others' analysis of me. I'm fairly self-deprecative. So, theoretically speaking, if there happened to be an excellent candidate who was very much willing but not very good at self-promotion, requiring candidates to make a case for themselves would hurt more than it helps -- SorcerorNobody 17:17, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Because this is essentially the method I proposed above, I support this method of voting. Though if we do this, I suggest that perhaps when one votes for a user for them not to give a comment. Additionally, there should be no comments section. I want to avoid what happened with the first admin poll; people singing praises for certain people and damning others. I don't want any people to feel offended or hurt when we're trying to get new admins. Even if people don't mean to attack someone else, I don't want something should be a friendly vote for who the new admin should be to turn ugly. ScatheMote 17:27, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Open nominations, collect reasons for and against

This is shaping up to be a good option based on our discussion. Anyone can nominate someone, including self-nomination. Users will place reasons in vote format for or against promoting the user in question, with current admins tallying up reason-votes based on the relevancy of the reasoning. Thus, a person with only a few good reason-votes can be seen as having more "real" votes than one with reason-votes bearing reasons that are inadequate for the purpose, and candidates can likewise go negative if there are more reason-votes against them than supporting them. BluestarultorBSA 23:40, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Self-nomination only would also be acceptable in this case. — YuanSalutActa 10:35, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much exactly the system I think will work best -- SorcerorNobody 13:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

After much thinking, I believe that this would be the better method. Even though it does lean towards a voting system, it still gives current admins some input at the end. My only worry is that there may be a backlash if the admin decides to give admin rights to a user that doesn't have the the most votes for or fewest votes against. But as long as the right person or people are chosen in the end, that's all that matters. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 15:56, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

If I ever see another nomination becoming a popularity contest, I swear I'll chase the responsibles with an oversized spiked bat. - Henryacores^ 20:44, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Commentaries

I apologize for making this section, but I have mixed feelings about the shown proposals and I can't seem to find a solid alternative myself.

I'd like to add that I believe that admins, as members of the community as everyone else, should actively give their feedback on nominees (I understand the negative repercussions of this, but I don't think staff should be excluded from voting. Where I come from, presidents vote too.). I also think that negative feedback should be given too. We're all grown up and we should be mature enough to say if we think that a nominee should or not be promoted in a constructive way, and the nominees should be mature enough to hear it. Nominating an admin is srs bzness. (I obviously understand why people won't like this idea). - Henryacores^ 18:17, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying there should also be a way to vote against? Well, I must say that would certainly be a good test of one's ability to handle adversity. I find myself agreeing with that. If a candidate isn't mature enough to handle negative votes, they probably won't do well handling negative users or feedback.

Also, I totally agree the staff should have their say. We're all members, staff or not. There's no reason to exclude people who are active around here, especially when their opinions are going to mean a lot to all the potentials. BluestarultorBSA 18:31, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy my intervention wasn't half as counterproductive as I thought it would.

To add to your first point, my intention of promoting negative feedback was actually to make the view of the community on the nominee more transparent. - Henryacores^ 19:17, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I said that postivite feedback should only be allowed is because somebody might take it as an opportunity to snipe at users.

But what you said is true. If you take anything as personal, then you wouldn't do a good job as admin, so fair enough. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 19:23, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with HenryA's points on negative feedback. I also agree with Faethin's point on "Feeling self-conscious about nominating yourself is just irrational modesty" -- if you think you've got what it takes to be admin then DO EET!. If you can't put yourself out there then get moar voice.

@Bluestar: I imagine that what you refer to as "staff" is just the admin staff? 79.69.196.219 19:48, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really think too much about it? My point was that anyone who's still around should have a voice, so it wasn't really a matter of putting people in individual boxes. I'd imagine that mod feedback would also mean a lot to people, especially from the veterans. For the purposes of the question, I suppose it stands most true for the admins, but I wasn't thinking that specifically. <.< BluestarultorBSA 20:02, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, you do know I was referring to "These reasons should then be judged by the current staff as to whether they're good or relevant reasons"? 79.69.196.219 20:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that was written with admins in mind. BluestarultorBSA 20:09, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

"Matter" is a tricky word. I'd say no, but really any good candidate is one who's been a part of the community for a while and intends to stay with us. The count itself shouldn't be a factor, but I think it might help indicate factors we should be looking at. Really, length active would be a much better thing to look at, since anyone here for over a year with no sign of leaving should know the rules and offers stability. BluestarultorBSA 20:21, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Edit count never really matters. What really matters are the contributions one makes to the wiki. An arbitrary number is a bad way of judging how worthwhile someone is to the wiki. ScatheMote 20:29, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Someone who has a large edit count doesn't mean that (s)he is a useful contributor (for example, me)Clarent--(Fate/Zero) 21:08, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

"Feeling self-conscious about nominating yourself is just irrational modesty" is a fair point; however, the similar (but subtly different) point that I made in my "vote" still stands. It is entirely possible for someone to be willing and not self-conscious, and still not be able to express why they think they'd make a good candidate – a fact that is complicated by the potential difference between what the community wants or needs, and what the candidate feels they can offer in relation to what they think the community wants or needs. In other words, there is the theoretical possibility of an excellent candidate who doesn't speak up not because they don't want to, but because they don't know where to begin. Of course, I'm not saying there'll necessarily be any candidates for which this is the case, but we should be careful not to do this in a way that will cause problems if it turns out that there are any.

I also agree about negative feedback being fine as long as it's objective assessment and not sniping -- SorcerorNobody 23:13, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Part of Bluestar's idea is that "other people either agree with reasons previously stated or add their own". So even if people don't know where to start with reasons, both are incorporated. ;)

EDIT: For clarification, that means that if such a person does arise, they don't have to submit any reasons, since the community should do that for them anyway. 79.69.196.219 23:17, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. My point was made in the context of deciding between either self-nomination or nomination by others, and was why I picked the latter. I'd say that allowing both would be the best option; candidates can be encouraged to speak up for themselves, but it's not requisite -- SorcerorNobody 23:23, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I meant is that with Bluestar's method, someone can self-nominate themselves and give no reason whatsoever. Other users can then come along and write reasons. Both statements from themselves and others will be considered by admins when deciding the best.

There is one difference. This "theoretical" person would then have no chance of being nominated unless someone has particularly noticed him in the second. In the first, if they nominated themselves, then users would be forced to consider them. 79.69.196.219 23:33, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, certainly. It is possible that the theoretical hasn't been noticed by anyone, but there would be nothing we could do about that *shrugs* It's admittedly not that likely that we'd have an exceptional candidate unable to self-promote at all, but in the case that it does happen, we can avoid it being a problem. By contrast, an exceptional candidate being completely off everybody's radar is extremely unlikely, so there's not much point worrying about it. At any rate, we've got it covered now...*goes to support the open nominations option* -- SorcerorNobody 13:47, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feel free to clarify my summary if it doesn't make sense or needs more added. I think this one might evolve somewhat, which is great, really. BluestarultorBSA 23:42, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

So we're voting on how to vote? This wiki just went meta. -- SomeColorMage ~ (Talk) 01:23, September 25, 2011 (UTC)